Hacker News Reader

Comment by kakuri | Hacker News Reader

I really feel like this article should also mention the rate of formation of new stars. According to [1] Universe Magazine the James Webb telescope has revealed that more than 3,000 stars are formed every second.

[1] https://universemagazine.com/en/james-webb-comes-closer-to-r...

View on HN

Based on this about 5.5 million stars are created every 30 minutes and only about 1 start goes supernova in the same period? This seems like it really reinforces the we are still in the early stages of the universe theory if the ratios are that imbalanced.

Still though the imbalance in those events makes me suspicious that we are missing something.

The vast majority of stars don't supernova.

Also, we're at the tail end of star-forming era. about 95% of all the stars that will be formed, have already been formed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/life-unbounded/the-s...

> only about 1 start goes supernova in the same period?

That we can observe with current technology, yes.

Theoretically, around 10-100 stars go supernova every single second somewhere in the universe.

I don't understand this comment. Like yes, 3000 stars per second, cool fact. But why would that fact make sense in the article? The article was about being surprised by the name "SN 2021 afdx", which has nothing to do with star formation.

In my opinion the article was great and is also complete. More cool astronomy facts belong in some other article or format.

Because the amount of stars that can go supernova is limited by how many stars there are in the first place? A comment about the staggering rate of star formation makes sense to me in relation to an article about the staggering rate of star supernovas..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com